The plaintiff agreed to purchase a residential property from the defendant.
Before closing, a fire damaged the property.
The defendant, whose insurance did not cover repairs due to vacancy, undertook repairs.
The plaintiff, a structural engineer, expressed concerns about the extent of the damage, the quality of repairs, and the lack of disclosure, and was denied the opportunity to inspect the damage before repairs.
The plaintiff ultimately refused to close the transaction due to unsatisfactory disclosure.
The defendant claimed anticipatory breach and counterclaimed for damages.
The court found that the defendant breached the agreement of purchase and sale by failing to provide the plaintiff a timely and meaningful opportunity to inspect the damage and by not acting in good faith in addressing the plaintiff's concerns.
The damage was deemed 'substantial' despite repair costs being a small percentage of the purchase price, as the quality, character, and consequences of the damage must also be considered.
The plaintiff's action for the return of his deposit was allowed, and the defendant's counterclaim for damages was dismissed.
